Thanks to the US fracking for oil we are now enjoying lower pump price at the gas station. At the beginning of this month in Malaysia we started paying Malaysian Ringgit (RM) 1.70 per litre of petrol, it was RM2.30 per litre from last November. As much as it is a sigh of relief to my wallet I know the consequence of enjoying every bit of this saving is setting us back in global energy reform and is most likely going to amplify the effects of global warming. The Malaysian government in its bit to encourage fossil fuel use to boost the retail profitability of Petronas, Malaysia's petrol producer has taken away tax free incentives for Hybrid and fully electric cars. Even if I wanted to buy a new car now, for the same specs a fuel car can be gotten at just under RM100,000, like the new Honda HRV. Honda's Hybrid CRZ comes in at RM180,000. So unless you have money to splurge to want to look 'green-cool' in Malaysia, the gov's decision is a death knell to reducing Malaysia's carbon footprint. So if US fracks for oil–its bad. If the world wants the US to stop fracking for oil energy prices continue being inflated, not so great either.
If you want to understand fracking here is a video on Youtube by National Geographic to explain it.
The video doesn't concern itself with the pro or cons of the process and I am not sure if the video is part of a larger documentary, but do check out the comments on the YouTube page for this video. Click here to to Go to the YouTube page. There is barely a comment in support of fracking.
What surprised me the most in this video was the number wells there are in just one shale bed–8,000 and it is expected to grow to 50,000 in coming years. I don't understand how we can disturb the geography so invasively and not expect negative repercussions. If time has taught us something about technology it is that it is never fool proof. This video ends ominously: "the long term environmental effects of fracking are unknown".....but I queried Google anyway.
Here are two articles: This one from frackingofamerica.com is against fracking; This one on Forbes...well it goes without saying which side they are on. To be fair to the USA, while it is one of the biggest user and producer of fossil fuels, the addiction to fossil fuels is a global habit. For instance the greatest opponents to environmental resolutions at the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen were the BRIC nations. For all the brouhaha for urgent intervention by nations to reverse the effects of climate change by national leaders who attended the conference we are back to square one with Brent Crude at USD50. It's back to business as usual with the oxymoronic justification that we still require the right to pollute the environment in the name of economic development.
Perhaps the only group of national leaders that went to Copenhagen to urgently push for concrete commitments to reduce global carbon dioxide pollution were the small island nations of the world led by the then President of Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed. With his and other small island nations in imminent danger from sea level rise the problem on their front yard. Unlike us continental-dwellers who have the luxury to think that global sea level rise is a political matter the former President put it simply that if the Maldives goes under so will all the major cities of the world that hug the coast. If disaster was allowed in Maldives it's the same fate for collective billions living in cities like New York, Shanghai, Bangkok, Jakarta, Rio, Miami, Sydney etc. The logic is simple enough to understand but at the end of the conference after a round of chest thumping about the need for economic development the big nations that could make a real impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions simply said: Yes we care, but all we can do is sympathize.
Since the 2009 conference, the political drive to try to find a cohesive turn around solution for global climate change seems to have ground to a halt. International politics has chosen to ignore the inconvenient consequences of global warming. It is only when a weather related disaster occurs that for brief spurts of time people and politicians clamor to do something about it–like how Hurricane Sandy reignited climate concerns as an issue during the 2012 race for the White House. Sandy certainly provided the crucial second wind to President Obama's campaign, unfortunately that was all the political wind she could muster leaving nothing like a lasting environmental agenda.
It looks like we are going to have to bear the consequences of global warming though we should still recycle to the hilt, demand for a ban on fossil fuel based plastics for bio-plastics, support renewable energy production and not to forget stop using virgin hardwood timber! Only sustainably grown ag-timber or bamboo. We must at least not exasperate persisting global warming conditions. The technology for sustainable living is available and can be scaled to the masses, yet politics and economic agendas of some of the most super-rich corporations stand in the way by condescendingly nagging off their viability.
If you are curious about the serious climate change / global warming concerns facing the small island nations of the world, this video The Island President is enlightening.
If you want to understand fracking here is a video on Youtube by National Geographic to explain it.
The video doesn't concern itself with the pro or cons of the process and I am not sure if the video is part of a larger documentary, but do check out the comments on the YouTube page for this video. Click here to to Go to the YouTube page. There is barely a comment in support of fracking.
What surprised me the most in this video was the number wells there are in just one shale bed–8,000 and it is expected to grow to 50,000 in coming years. I don't understand how we can disturb the geography so invasively and not expect negative repercussions. If time has taught us something about technology it is that it is never fool proof. This video ends ominously: "the long term environmental effects of fracking are unknown".....but I queried Google anyway.
Here are two articles: This one from frackingofamerica.com is against fracking; This one on Forbes...well it goes without saying which side they are on. To be fair to the USA, while it is one of the biggest user and producer of fossil fuels, the addiction to fossil fuels is a global habit. For instance the greatest opponents to environmental resolutions at the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen were the BRIC nations. For all the brouhaha for urgent intervention by nations to reverse the effects of climate change by national leaders who attended the conference we are back to square one with Brent Crude at USD50. It's back to business as usual with the oxymoronic justification that we still require the right to pollute the environment in the name of economic development.
Perhaps the only group of national leaders that went to Copenhagen to urgently push for concrete commitments to reduce global carbon dioxide pollution were the small island nations of the world led by the then President of Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed. With his and other small island nations in imminent danger from sea level rise the problem on their front yard. Unlike us continental-dwellers who have the luxury to think that global sea level rise is a political matter the former President put it simply that if the Maldives goes under so will all the major cities of the world that hug the coast. If disaster was allowed in Maldives it's the same fate for collective billions living in cities like New York, Shanghai, Bangkok, Jakarta, Rio, Miami, Sydney etc. The logic is simple enough to understand but at the end of the conference after a round of chest thumping about the need for economic development the big nations that could make a real impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions simply said: Yes we care, but all we can do is sympathize.
Since the 2009 conference, the political drive to try to find a cohesive turn around solution for global climate change seems to have ground to a halt. International politics has chosen to ignore the inconvenient consequences of global warming. It is only when a weather related disaster occurs that for brief spurts of time people and politicians clamor to do something about it–like how Hurricane Sandy reignited climate concerns as an issue during the 2012 race for the White House. Sandy certainly provided the crucial second wind to President Obama's campaign, unfortunately that was all the political wind she could muster leaving nothing like a lasting environmental agenda.
It looks like we are going to have to bear the consequences of global warming though we should still recycle to the hilt, demand for a ban on fossil fuel based plastics for bio-plastics, support renewable energy production and not to forget stop using virgin hardwood timber! Only sustainably grown ag-timber or bamboo. We must at least not exasperate persisting global warming conditions. The technology for sustainable living is available and can be scaled to the masses, yet politics and economic agendas of some of the most super-rich corporations stand in the way by condescendingly nagging off their viability.
If you are curious about the serious climate change / global warming concerns facing the small island nations of the world, this video The Island President is enlightening.
No comments:
Post a Comment